Jacobs v. State, 89-1184
| Decision Date | 05 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-1184,89-1184 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D2214 Marvin JACOBS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Rehearing and Clarification Denied Oct. 17, 1990.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, Cherry Grant and Eric M. Cumfer, Asst. Public Defenders, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Patricia G. Lampert, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
We affirm appellant's conviction; however, we find reversible error in the sentencing procedure which will require resentencing. Appellant was in jail at the time of sentencing. His attorney and the sentencing judge were in the courtroom. Communication was accomplished through closed-circuit television. Such an arrangement is not authorized by rule or statute and is consequently fatally and fundamentally flawed. Rule 3.180(a)(9), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides that a defendant shall be present at the pronouncement of judgment and the imposition of sentence. This is essential to permit the defendant to confer with his counsel privately and to have the benefit of his advice. Further, the rules specifically permit communication by way of audiovisual video camera at first appearances and at the arraignment stage of proceedings. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.130(a) and 3.160(a). Failure to include sentencing as an exception to the "personally present" requirement cannot be deemed mere oversight. Accordingly, we reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing.
We also strike the imposition of costs imposed upon the indigent appellant without prior notice. Mays v. State, 519 So.2d 618 (Fla.1988); Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984). The requirement that appellant pay the Public Defender's fee is similarly flawed. Thomas v. State, 486 So.2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. State
...or a sentencing hearing by means of closed circuit television. Seymour v. State, 582 So.2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Jacobs v. State, 567 So.2d 16 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The Fourth District, however, has also held that a defendant may voluntarily waive his right to be present at his sentencing......
-
Schiffer v. State, 92-1000
...1140 (Fla.1985). We have, however, permitted the defendant to waive this right. Williams v. State, 578 So.2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). In Williams, the defendant was present at his sentencing hearing via a video/audio arrangement. We found no fundamental error with the proceedings in that th......
-
R.R. v. Portesy, 93-2869
...Schiffer v. State, 617 So.2d 357 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Seymour v. State, 582 So.2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); and Jacobs v. State, 567 So.2d 16 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). R.R. argues that the video-telephone procedure used in this case did not satisfy the requirement of physical presence, and furthe......
-
Scott v. State, 2
...television a plea hearing, Seymour v. State, 582 So.2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA1991), and a sentencing hearing. Seymour; Jacobs v. State, 567 So.2d 16 (Fla. 4th DCA1990). The Fourth District, however, has held that a defendant voluntarily may waive his right to be present personally at his sentenc......
-
Pleading guilty and video teleconference: is a defendant constitutionally "present" when pleading guilty by video teleconference?
...to defendant who wishes to plead guilty via video when defendant and his or her attorney consult through video); Jacobs v. Florida, 567 So.2d 16 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990). Cf. Scott v. Florida, 618 So.2d 1386 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993) (holding defendant's due process rights not violated w......